This subject generates far more heat than light in Christian circles. Invariably the reaction is emotional because Christians do not want to be tainted with the labels of "scientific ignoramus" and such like. I here set out the basic arguments that are given more fully in my "True Science Agrees with the Bible" - Appendix 10.

(1) BIBLICAL SUPPORT.
There are many references to the sun "going down", "arising" etc. NOT ONCE does the Bible ever refer to the earth rotating. Those who say that the Bible is only recording the "appearance" of the movement of the sun are -
(a)having to ADD to the most obvious meaning of the understanding of the Bible passage and

(b) are adopting the same position as liberal critics who have tried to destroy the Bible by saying that many of the sayings of Christ were "adapted to the simple understanding and low education of His hearers" and that we are more educated today to correct what he said - or such like. The Bible is true in its normal sensible understanding of its statements. We say sensible because we do not literally interpret what are clearly allegories and metaphors - this is usually used by critics to ridicule Bible believers.

(2) THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION
There is a major Biblical problem facing Christian heliocentrists. The sun is not referred to until Day 4. Most contend that it was created on Day 1 but only became visible on Day 4 so that they can have the earth going round the sun from the very first day of its creation. The problem is that the same word is used for the creation of the sun as for other material or animals in Genesis 1. "Bara" and "Asah" are both used for creation and there is no distinction between creation from nothing and creation from previous created material. Both words are used of Man's creation. To say that the sun had already been created before day 4 is to twist the scriptures beyond acceptability in this one specific case to save the heliocentric position - and Hebrew scholars agree. If this interpretation is used in this one instance, why is it not used for all the other verses in Genesis. It would make nonsense of the whole record of events.

So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three days? And when the sun was created on Day 4, did God give the earth a jolt and send it on its circular route around the sun? Surely the most obvious explanation is that the earth was created FIRST of all the universe - as the Bible says - and the universe rotated around it - with all the planets created later on Day 4. How this could take place scientifically we examine below.

(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS
Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity -

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment
(Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) "Airey's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?

THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE
How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating? There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. This whole universe sweeps round the earth because otherwise it would collapse in on itself due to its density. The mechanics of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses in their orbit around the sun. Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model.

Thus, there is evidence that the earth is NOT moving around the sun, but either the aether is moving around the earth carrying the planets with it, or the earth is spinning on its axis. The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly collapse upon itself.

____________________________________________

In connection with evidence supporting geocentrism, there was an item in Richard Corliss' "Science Frontiers" No. 133 Jan-Feb 2001 which I copy here.

...........................................

ASTRONOMY - THE FINGERS OF GOD

We present the following quotation without comment because "tvf" (the author) has obliged in his review of a recent article in "Science".

LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE

A vast redshift survey of over 100,000 galaxies shows hundreds of superclusters and "Great wall"-like structures, but also "the ends of the biggest structures in the universe". Vast clumps and dark voids are seen. [tvf: No comment is made (in Science) on the clumps and voids both being elongated in directions along our line of sight. This phenomenon is called "the fingers of God" because galaxies seem to line up in filaments pointing at us. The simplest non-theological way out of this dilemma is to jettison redshift as a reliable distance indicator.]

(Van Flandern, Tom; Meta Research Bulletin 9:48, 2000. Citing; science, 288:2121, 2000.)
............................................................ .
Whilst not evidence, it was interesting to learn of John Calvin's geocentric views from a friend who wrote;
I have just come across an interesting statement by Calvin that proves that he was wiser than many of his followers. In the "Argument" which prefaces his commentary on Genesis, he says: "We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the centre."
Then comes an irritating and lengthy footnote from his nineteenth-century translator and editor. I quote in part: "The erroneous system of natural philosophy which had prevailed for ages was but just giving way to sounder views, at the time when Calvin wrote.... Up to that period, the earth had been regarded as the centre of the system, and the whole heavens were supposed to revolve around it......"
Interestingly, it is not the first time that I have distrusted the footnotes of nineteenth century editors of older works.

________________________________
Malcolm Bowden.
25.9.99 - updated with two end quotes 19.1.01

TO THE NEXT CREATION PAGE - "Ape-men" reconstructions
HOMEPAGE